Please give the community a chance to review it for grammar prior to posting to reddit. Thanks. I am trying to get this out in a timely manner for the Bitstamp news.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2015, 11:04:18 am by cass »

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

sumantso

Maybe not mention that you had thousands of dollars locked up on Bitstamp? By now you know that trolls will take anything they can get and jump on it.

I will post it in Bitcointalk later, but consider editing that part out before I do that. I can already see them shouting that the founder himself doesn't believe.

(I know its logical to have balance there, just that it leaves an open attack option).

EDIT: Also, can you make BitBTC more prominent in the article? The BTCtalk folks love, well, BTC and making it sound like that BitBTC is simply BTC which facilitates decentralized trading is gonna help. I felt the article was too heavy on USD but merely mentioned BTC.

Hold off on posting to reddit until our current front-pager is pushed off!

Logged

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Is there any security benefit for owning BitstampUSD on BitShares rather than the exchange website itself? If so, this should be mentioned.

Also, I think people need to be ready to respond to those attacking the regulatory UIA rules that allow issuers to control all balances. I've already seen people attacking this.

Owning bitstampUSD is just like having USD on their exchange. Currently with no efficient 2 factor authentication or hardware wallets you could argue that it's actually more insecure holding the bitshares IOU than having money on the exchange, so we shouldn't try to mention this, we should just say they are equal.

The real advantage is that you don't need to have cryptocurrency on the exchange. Only crypto is vulnerable to hacking, and fiat has never been never been stolen from an exchange, so fiat IOU's from regulated exchanges can be considered quite safe.

I agree about removing the reference to Dan's BitStamp loss. It doesn't add to the discussion and makes Dan look like a victim of the very thing he is cautioning against.

EDITS:

"Before diving into how crypto currency exchanges will work in the future, lets review how the roles that traditional exchanges perform today."

"There is a large time delay associated with moving money into or out of an exchange [ADD COMMA HERE] which means that traders must keep their funds on the exchange. This magnifies the amount of risk to users of the exchange. It also magnifies the risk to all users in the Bitcoin ecosystem. When ever [Whenever] there is a large security breach it results in significant sell pressure from both the thief looking to cash in their loot and from regular users hoping to sell before the thief."

"Bitcoin gives every user one or more account numbers (addresses)[COMMA, and] that give many people a false sense of privacy[security]. " [privacy= they know who you are but not what you are doing]

"Coinbase is already closing accounts based upon who you do business with after withdrawing your Bitcoins." [a link ref would be nice here. I have never heard this allegation before.]

"If we want to have even the slightest bit of privacy we need to divide the exchange functionality among hundreds of parties whom[who] are unlikely to collude to compromise identity. "

"BitShares will be a fully operation[al] exchange with many banking partners and no limits. "

I agree about removing the reference to Dan's BitStamp loss. It doesn't add to the discussion and makes Dan look like a victim of the very thing he is cautioning against.

I'm not sure that this is necessary. The current reality is that most of us operate with some crypto or fiat on centralised exchanges from time to time. It's disingenuous to pretend that we don't in the absence of off-ramps that allow for direct conversion of BitShares BitAssets to fiat.

Perhaps the point could be made that when on/off-ramps come online that support BitShares directly and when liquidity improves for BitAssets within BitShares then this need for holding on exchanges will reduce/disappear. In fact I think Dan implicitly does make this point when he talks about exchanges becoming or being replaced by gateways elsewhere in the article. Perhaps there's an argument for making that more explicit at the point where he talks about having funds held up on Bitstamp.

Thanks for the grammar check, I believe I have made all recommended fixes.

Logged

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.orgAnything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else. These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Second paragraph, second line should be withdrawal limits rather than withdraw limits.

This is a really great blog post about our biggest strength. I feel like we have a good shot as branding ourselves as "the decentralized bitcoin exchange". Now we just need monsterers gateway system to come online and then do a video showing off how to use them!

you cannot steal IOUs or bitAssets from a gateway because the gateway has "superadmin" powers over their IOUs ON-THE-CHAIN(!!!) and processes the order books to bitassets ... so if someone manages to "steal" IOUs the gateway just freezes them or reverts them but simply does not process orders from that account ... thus the IOUs are stuck and worth nothing ...

furthermore the gateway knows exactly WHO owns HOW many IOUs and is the only instance that can process the orderbook to bitassets .. from that point on it's YOUR job to secure the funds ..